I do not see a citation anywhere in that post. Sorry, try again.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Trust the basement-dwelling "whaaaah gubmint baaaad!" conspiracy nuts on Slashdot to bring up 'evidence' completely unrelated to the point they are struggling to make.
'Fruit of the poisonous tree' deals with how the evidence is obtained. If, after obtaining the evidence in a legal way, an officer commits a crime by then stealing out of the evidence gathered, that still makes the evidence admissible in court. Absent any cases cited to the contrary, of course.
What, you expect that Little England will stop paying the license fee en masse?
The BBC is not dependent on stars to bring in money. It is publicly funded.
Since you are reduced to quibbling over the semantics of a metaphor, I think I can safely conclude you concede the rest of my points.
Then don't write in the present tense if you don't want people to compare your points to the present state of Lisp. It's as easy as that.
Here's a nickel kid. Go buy yourself a decent education.
California's debt at the state level is many times larger. Even Gov. Brown estimated it at $354b last year, and that's likely far too low.
Still a trifle on a 2.2 trillion GDP. And I noticed you glossed over the fact that static debt numbers are meaningless, it's the debt service that counts.
You have to add to that even larger local debts.
Nope, you don't get to do that. Local debts are the responsibility of the local authorities, you don't get to add them to the state debt. And If they have enough tax base to carry the debt service, the debt the local authorities run up is again, irrelevant.
And who, pray tell, "shackles" California's tax raising powers anyway? The state is entirely in the hands of Democrats.
Here's who and what:
- The Republicans, because California requires a two-thirds Assembly majority to pass a budget, and they won't budge on tax increases.
- Proposition 13.
Seriously, if I know this from an ocean and a continent away, then it is rather obvious who the illiterate is, now isn't it?
I was not arguing that Lisp has taken off or should have taken off, so you can take that strawman and stick it up your arse.
Secondly, since all but one of your points are factually untrue, that can't be why Lisp hasn't taken off. You are making points that do not support your argument, leading credence to the conclusion that you are merely trying to rationalise a personal dislike of Lisp. Nothing wrong with not liking a language, but at least do your audience the courtesy of being honest about it.
Lastly, it is the height of stupidity to double down on a position when you have already proven that you do not know what you are talking about. No amount of impressive sounding words is going to hide your basic lack of knowledge of the development of Lisp since McCarthy's time.
It has nothing to do with it being unconstitutional. Dutch judges are expressly forbidden to judge on that subject, see my other post on this thread for details.
It is in fact a rather surprising decisions, since Dutch judges have no tradition of ruling in 'contra legem' procedures; they are in fact forbidden by the Constitution to do so (article 120 says judges shall not judge the constitutionality of laws and treaties).
Now, the loophole here is that treaties are considered higher law than the Constitution, so judges can rule local laws in violation of a treaty. They don't tend to do that in mere district court though.
Apparently the case made by complainant was compelling enough, and the governments argument weak enough, that a mere district judge felt they could safely make that ruling.
 On the gripping hand, the principle of subsidiarity means that if a case is covered by the Constitution as well as a treaty, judges are supposed to use the Constitution as the basis for their decision, once again invoking art. 120. But of course if the Constitution and the treaty align enough, appealing to treaty law wouldn't work anyway.
I'm sorry, but a debt of 130 billion on a Gross State Product of 2 trillion hardly counts as 'deeply in debt'.
As most economic illiterates, you confuse debt with interest. Debt is irrelevant. What is relevant is being able to service that debt; California has had its troubles in that area, but mostly because idiots like you managed to shackle the government's tax-raising powers.
And yet all 4 of these have a GDP per capita higher than the US average. Apparently the facts say that this tax burden isn't so crippling after all.
The only point still valid is point 3, and that's a matter of taste.
The ANSI standard is Common Lisp, and it addresses all your points. Wake up and smell the coffee, the 50s are over.
And as I mentioned, the corporations and state-appointed unions (which of course are not real unions) are subordinate to the State. It's a combinations about as much as you can call an army a combination of officers and enlisted men. It's obvious where the power lies.
No. Fascism is all about the supremacy of the State. Below the ultimate power of the State a hierarchy is formed of those who may wield power on their own, with business and finally State-appointed and -controlled unions as you go further down, but it is State power that counts.
Your amount of service to the State determines whether or not you get privileges as a citizen, in the ST universe. That is not the least bit fascist, of course.